• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Clinton Administration Ignored Warnings

i see the date and the time period...2005.... after the invasion. If the Iraqi's were so bent on earning their freedom from Saddam, we would have seen a greater resistance in Iraq.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Please feel free to share. This is the appropriate time and place after all.
Click to expand...

Sandy's chucking of the National Archive materials, though brushed off as 'inadvertant'...

From Foxnews Yeah yeah, I know Fox news...

"However, some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of Al Qaeda terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing, officials and lawyers said. Officials said the missing documents also identified America's terror vulnerabilities at airports to seaports."

While some kind of vanilla'd the Story to make it seem a popular guy in the big circles made a boo-boo, the fact that these files are conveniently missing seems to point a finger at Berger as to what is missing and why.

Sandy's repeated aversion to acting on intelligence, that could very well have resulted in a lot of bloodshed being avoided, might provide an answer...

NYSUN

“In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured. He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted,” the report says, citing a May 1, 1998, Central Intelligence Agency memo summarizing the weekly meeting between Messrs. Berger and Tenet."

---Well he did officially declare war on the U.S. in '96. 4 months after this meeting, the embassies are bombed. Good job Sandy!

In June of 1999, another plan for action against Mr. bin Laden was on the table. The potential target was a Qaeda terrorist camp in Afghanistan known as Tarnak Farms. The commission report released yesterday cites Mr. Berger’s “handwritten notes on the meeting paper” referring to “the presence of 7 to 11 families in the Tarnak Farms facility, which could mean 60-65 casualties.”According to the Berger notes, “if he responds, we’re blamed.”

"On December 4, 1999, the National Security Council’s counterterrorism coordinator, Richard Clarke, sent Mr. Berger a memo suggesting a strike in the last week of 1999 against Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Reports the commission: “In the margin next to Clarke’s suggestion to attack Al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote, ‘no.’ ”
 
Last edited:
nkgupta80 said:
i see the date and the time period...2005.... after the invasion. If the Iraqi's were so bent on earning their freedom from Saddam, we would have seen a greater resistance in Iraq.
Click to expand...

There was a rather large resistance in Iraq........we now call them mass graves.
 
I was going to jump in here...but I see wrath has things firmly in control...
 

Funny that it's made up of the same people who turned tail and ran when they thought they would lose. Given their history why wouldnt they do it again? Besides, a quick lesson in the art of war isn't going to give them what they need to eliminate the terrorism. Heck we're the teachers and we can't even do it! The French helped us but they didn't fight the war for us. Thats the difference.
 
i see the date and the time period...2005.... after the invasion. If the Iraqi's were so bent on earning their freedom from Saddam, we would have seen a greater resistance in Iraq.
Click to expand...

The Kurdish resistance is not a general resistance brought on by the Iraqi people....
 
There was a rather large resistance in Iraq........we now call them mass graves.
Click to expand...

The Kurdish resistance is not a general resistance brought on by the Iraqi people....
 

Yes it is interesting that Mr. Burger was stuffing his socks with original copies of government doccuments. Makes me wonder what the Clinton administration is hiding.
 
We can't even do what exactly!?....eliminate islamic terrorism in just two years!! Is that the basis for your arguement? If it can't be done quickly and easily then forget it. Imagine if we had that attitude during WWII! Spreken zie deutsch? Some of my friends are still in the military and tell me every week how the news media is more interested in the body counts than any real progress that has been made. Many of them wont even talk to the media anymore because most of their statements have been edited out. They know why and so do I as I was there in '91.
 

Well since the security and government establishment of Iraq depends on the erradication of the terrorists in their country you'd better be able to get rid of it especially since America allowed it to enter after we invaded. There were no terrorist organizations in Iraq prior to our invasion. You're totally missing the point. I said that you can't expect a 3rd rate military to protect it's nation from islamic fundamentalism by giving them a few guns and a quick "how to" class. Oh and by the way we've had 4 years and we're the world super power and we haven't been able to do it. So I'll use your own argument against you. How does wielding guns and smart bombs put an end to a radical theology? I challenge you to find 1 example in history of a nation whos government was installed by a foreign power without the people playing an active role in fighting for it and that government not crumbling. You won't find one. We went there and tried to impose a western democracy but guess what the people don't want a democracy. They want an islamic state. Oh und ja ich spreche deutsch. If you're going to use the german language spell it properly...*sprechen *sie. Thats interesting..I've seen plenty of soldiers talking on the news saying things after they kill someone like "Yeah that gave me a rush. It makes me want to do it again." Oh yeah..thats a good thing to be teaching young men. Killing gives you a rush so do it and do it often.
 

The US allowed terrorists to come into Iraq. Interesting choice of words. What would you suggest should have been done to "dis-allow" terrorists from entering Iraq?

Are you living in a vacuum? Iraqi's don't want democracy? What? they preferred a dictatorship? I would laugh if that statement if not for it's pathetic nature.

Thank you for correcting my german. I suppose it would be better if we took your approach 60 years ago. Thankfully we did not.

You have seen PLENTY of soldiers talking about the rush of killing have you?! Thank you again for verifying your dishonesty. One Lt. Gen. James Mattis made remarks that he should not have and now it is plenty of soldiers. Yes, lets focus again on one incident and make it the whole issue. How leftist of you. Old and overused tactics that might work well on someone that doesn't know better.
 

1. Absolutley. The government openly anticipated the threat as they should have yet did nothing to prevent it from hapening. They could have sealed the borders and don't tell me that we wouldn't have enough troops to do it because we have plenty of troops sitting around idley occupying countries which haven't been a threat for 60 or more years. I'll give you one example..Germany.

2. The "democracy" the American government want for Iraq is not the same "democracy" Iraqi's want for Iraq. Iraqis want an Islamic state..in case you don't know that means exclusively using islamic law which is far from democratic.

3. Iraq and WW2 are entirely different. Hitler had the means and capability to be a threat in the present Saddam did not. WW2 was a fight for AMERICAN democracy and AMERICAN freedom as well as that of Europe. Iraq was and is not.

4. I've heard that and the hoots and hollars of the joy of killing enough to come to that conclusion. I also recall seeing a broadcast of another terrible incident in which american soldiers used excessive force. An Iraqi man was pulled over when he was giving 2 men a ride. The soldiers realized that those 2 men were wanted but the Iraqi man didn't know that because the military had not realeased that information to the Iraqi public. The Iraqi man used that car to transport lumber and other materials for his buisiness and it was his ownly means of making a living and continuing his buisiness. So what did the troops do? They claim the man was guilty of aiding terrorists even though they had not released any information that the 2 men were wanted and they rolled over the man's car with a tank while laughing about it. You may say that we talk about this sort of needless and excessive force too much but you would have us ignore it all together...which is simply unacceptable. You say that talking about it endangers our troops? Chances are that man, whos only source of livelihood was destroyed, told a friend who told his neighbor, who told his neighbor, who told his friend who told his friend, and the terrorists somehow heard about it. I highly doubt the man wouldn't have told someone. So in reality the only danger to the soldiers are the soldiers themselves who commit these abhorent actions.
 
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
There were no terrorist organizations in Iraq prior to our invasion.
Click to expand...
Hogwash. Of there were. They are still there under the protection ofthe US military. Members of Team Bush have been raising funds for them. And some pro-war Bush supporters are trying to give our US tax dollars to this Islamo-Marxist terror cult Saddam Hussein nuitured and ourished. This is very fnorded information. Not everyone is capable of seeing it and processing it. Most folks simply avert their eyes I suppose.

Here's a list of resources and snipets re the international terrorist group that Saddam hussein supported and that Team Bush is aiding and harboring:




c
 
A sampling from this collection:
Designation of National Council of Resistance and National Council of Resistance of Iran under Executive Order 13224
Tom Casey, Acting Spokesman | Press Statement Released on August 15, 2003
U.S. Department of State

The Secretary of State has amended the designation, under Executive Order 13224 on terrorist financing, of the Mujahedin-e Khalq, known as the MEK, to add its aliases National Council of Resistance (NCR) and National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). That Executive Order blocks the assets of organizations and individuals linked to terrorism. The decision also clarifies that the designation includes the U.S. representative office of NCRI and all its other offices worldwide, and that the designation of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (“PMOI”) as an alias of the MEK includes the PMOI’s U.S. representative office and all other offices worldwide.
​

Islamist, Marxist, Terrorist
by Amir Taheri| Wall Street Journal | June 23, 2003
Benador Associates
Rajavi fled Tehran for Paris in 1981 by hijacking an Iranian aircraft. Among those with him was Abol-Hassan Bani-Sadr, the first president of the Islamic Republic who had just broken with Ayatollah Khomeini. Instead of arresting Rajavi and Bani-Sadr as hijackers, the French rolled out the red carpet. Claude Cheysson, then foreign minister, persuaded them to work with Iraq -- then at war against Iran -- to topple Khomeini. At a meeting arranged by Mr. Cheysson, Rajavi and Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz signed a deal in which the MEK would receive cash and backing from Baghdad in exchange for help in the war against Iran.
... with ingredients from the Iranian religious sociologist Ali Shariati, who advocated an "Islam without a clergy."
... with KGB help, engaged in a campaign against the Shah, and sent cadres to Cuba, East Germany, South Yemen and Palestinian camps in Lebanon to train as guerrillas.
Vladimir Kuzishkin, a former KGB head in Tehran ... MEK became a major source of information on Iran for Moscow. ... helped Moscow ... to thwart U.S. influence in Iran.
... murdered five American military technicians working with the Iranian army.
[MKO] burned cinemas, restaurants, hotels and bookshops, and murdered policemen.
... [supported] the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
... Rajavi ... decided that the Khomeinist regime ... ... had to be toppled ... there ensued a terrorist operation against the regime, that still continues.
... 1987, Jacques Chirac ... [granted MKO] protection in exchange for a promise not to kill Iranian officials on French soil.
... 40,000 Iranians to Europe on bogus claims and in exchange for "voluntary contributions" of up to $10,000 each.
... recruited its adepts mainly from relatives of people executed by the Khomeinist regime.
[MKO] ...helped Saddam in his genocidal campaign against the Kurds ...

​

 
The People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran
Kenneth Katzman | Washington, Nov 1992
US State Department Report | Source: Irandidban.com

Announcement of US about Mojahedin

​

...Mojahedin collaborated with Ayatollah Khomeini to overthrow the former Shah of Iran. As part of that struggle, they assassinated at least six American citizens, supported the takeover of the U.S. embassy, and opposed the release of American hostages.
...NCR became a mere shell as individuals and groups abandoned the organization because of Mojahedin domination.
Rajavi relocated to Baghdad, Iraq, adopting Saddam Hussein as his patron, in 1987.
...National Liberation Army (NLA), the military wing of the Mojahedin, which conducted raids into Iran during the latter years of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war. ...NLA's last major offensive reportedly was conducted against Iraqi Kurds in 1991, when it joined Saddam Hussein's brutal repression of the Kurdish rebellion. In addition to occasional acts of sabotage, the Mojahedin are responsible for violent attacks in Iran that victimize civilians.

The clerical regime in Tehran, aware of the Mojahedin's unpopularity, attempts to discredit many of its opponents by falsely linking them to the MKO.

Despite Mojahedin assertions that the group has abandoned its revolutionary ideology and now favors a liberal democracy, there is no written or public record of discussion or debate about the dramatic reversals in the Mojahedin's stated positions. Internally, the Mojahedin run their organization autocratically, suppressing dissent and eschewing tolerance of differing viewpoints. Rajavi, who heads the Mojahedin's political and military wings, has fostered a cult of personality around himself. These characteristics have alienated most Iranian expatriates... Given these attributes, it is no coincidence that the only government in the world that supports the Mojahedin politically and financially is the totalitarian regime of Saddam Hussein.
Shunned by most Iranians and fundamentally undemocratic, the Mojahedin-e Khalq are not a viable alternative to the current government of Iran.
The organization broke drown into Marxist and Muslim factions. The Muslim faction, under Rajavi's leadership, soon gained control of the organization. But the religious disagreement between the secular and Islamic factions of the MKO did not undermine their fundamental agreement on the issue of imperialism, nor their strategy of armed struggle against the Pahlavi regime and American interests in Iran.
The Mojahedin are known to have assassinated the following Americans in Iran during the 1970s:
Lt. Colonel Lewis L. Hawkins Killed: June 2, 1973 Air Force Colonel Paul Schaeffer Killed: May 21, 1975
Air Force Lt. Colonel Jack Turner Killed: May 21, 1975
Donald G. Smith, Rockwell International Killed: August 28, 1976
Robert R. Krongrad, Rockwell International Killed: August 28, 1976
William C. Cottrell, Rockwell International Killed: August 28, 1976
Air Force Brigadier General Harold price was wounded in a 1972 attack Planned by Mojahedin Central committee member, Kazem Zul Ai-Anvar.


Mojahedin newspapers and proclamations published at the time confirm the group's leadership in renouncing the United States. The very day that 400 university students overtook the U.S. embassy, the Mojahedin issued a proclamation headlined, "After the Shah, it's America's turn."
Following the seizure of the embassy, the Mojahedin participated physically at the site, assisting in holding and defending the embassy against liberation. They also offered political support for the hostage-keeping. For example, the Mojahedin sent a telegram to Khomeini expressing allegiance to the Ayatollah's policy of "rooting out the aggressive, American imperialism of the traitorous Shah." The telegram closed with the following declaration: "(We are) awaiting the definitive command of the Imam (Khomeini) for uprooting all the imperialist and Zionist foundations.
It described the release of the hostages as a "retreat" and "surrender" and warned that resumption of diplomatic relations with the United States would be "treason to the people and to the blood of our martyrs."


In particular, Rajavi's unilateral decision to tie the Council to Iraq alienated the others, who viewed the alliance as a traitor's deed.
Bani Sadr asserts that the first formal pact between the Mojahedin and Iraq was negotiated during a January 1983 meeting between Rajavi and Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz in France. Mojahedin publications also confirm this meeting.
...June 1986... Rajavi's departure was the price France paid for the release of French hostages in Lebanon.
Rajavi's former attorneys, an Iranian jurist then resident in France, explained the move:
"When Rajavi came to France, he and his supporters quickly ran out of money. The Iraqi government offered him support and they accepted. In the long run, they became proxies of the Iraqi regime and lost much of their credibility within Iran."

Military scholar Anthony Cordesman offered another analysis:
"The end result of France's action, however, was to give Rajavi much better access to arms, training facilities near the border, and much larger financial resources."

Baghdad "Provided training facilities and staging grounds for the (NLA) unit's operations, as well as headquarters facilities in the Iraqi capital."
[One Western reporter] noted the Mojahedin's "softened ideology and assertions of battlefield prowess," and described their two-part strategy for gaining power.
"The first (element), a military campaign, is supposed to establish the credibility of the Mojahedin, or Warriors of God. Another element ... is a political and propaganda drive designed to revise its anti-American history and to blur its near-total dependence on cooperation with Baghdad. Iran's enemy and the base of its military operations."

[Following Operation Desert Storm]Iraqi Kurds also claimed the Mojahedin had assisted the Iraqi army in its suppression of the Kurds, "a claim-substantiated by refugees who fled near the Iranian border." ...Jalal Talabani [PUK], told reporters that "5,000 Iranian Mojahedin joined Saddam's forces in the battle for Kirkuk."
...Wall Street Journal report stated that the NLA's "only major offensive in the past six years came in 1991, just after the Gulf War, when Saddam Hussein ordered Mr. Rajavi to help quell a Kurdish revolt in northern Iraq, participants in that operation say."
Despite [soliciting Western Support], the Mojahedin in fact are supported by only one government in the world --Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

[MEK claims to support "democracy," "peace," "love, friendship, and unity," "separation of church and state," and "recognition of private ownership and a market economy,"] present a revolutionary departure from the substantial written record of Mojahedin ideology. Examples of such reversals include the switch from revolutionary Islam to separation of church and state and from nationalization to private ownership. Yet the changes in MKO ideology occurred without any public debate, and there is no public record of discussion or review of Mojahedin principles. It is also unclear when each change in policy occurred, and what internal factors motivated each shift. The absence of dialogue about this critical issue of ideology contrasts markedly with the group's earlier history of discourse.
Nor are these new claims substantiated by the record of the Mojahedin's activities throughout the last 29 years. Mojahedin organizations do not follow the principles outlined in their revised propaganda. In particular, the Mojahedin have never practiced democracy within their own organization, the Mojahedin-dominated NCR, or the NLA.
. The Mojahedin's credibility is also undermined by the fact that they deny or distort sections of their history, such as the use of violence or opposition to Zionism. It is difficult to accept at face value promises of future conduct when an organization fails to acknowledge its past.

By mid-1987, the Mojahedin organization had all the main attributes of a cult. It had its own revered leader whom it referred to formally as the "Guide" and informally as the "present Imam."
[Former member of the MKO, Hadi Shams-Haeri] said...members who tried to leave were jailed, held either in an NLA camp of placed in an Iraqi prison. ...condemned to execution for their dissent, but the orders are stayed until the MKO "reaches victory" in Iran. ...members were considered members "for life." ...only allowed to read Mojahedin publications and that they were monitored by informers. ...Mojahedin forced couples and families to separate, arguing that the people, should devote their love only to Masud and Maryam Rajavi.

IV: EXTERNAL SUPPORT
​
Saddam Hussein has been one of the organization's primary financiers, providing weapons and, cash totaling an estimated hundreds of millions of dollars.
 

:rofl I love how you completely twisted them around in an attempt to justisy your argument. "The Secretary of Statehas amended the designation, under Executive Order 13224 on terrorist financing" "That Executive Order blocks the assets of organizations and individuals linked to terrorism. The decision also clarifies that the designation includes the U.S. representative office of NCRI and all its other offices worldwide, and that the designation of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (“PMOI”) as an alias of the MEK includes the PMOI’s U.S. representative office and all other offices worldwide." Try reading that again..and read it as it is not how you want it to be. You've proven absolutely nothing. Saddam NEVER allowed terrorists groups to form and live in Iraq. He kept it SECULAR and kept the terrorists out for a reason..to drastically reduce the risk of islamic radicals turning against him and overthrowing him. He did however give money to the family of suicide bombers of organizations like Hezbolah but NEVER to Al Qaeda and he NEVER had any semblance of a collborative relationship with Al Qaede and Al Qaeda NEVER took root in Iraq which was stated by the 9/11 commission. Saddam NEVER funded any terrorist group which threatend or attacked the United States. The U.S. does have a history of supporting Hezbolah and other terrorist organizations but NEVER any which threatened to attack the United States. You've provided no evidence..just a bunch of he said she said arguments and conjecture.
 
Last edited:
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
:rofl I love how you completely twisted them around in an attempt to justisy your argument.

Try reading that again..and read it as it is not how you want it to be.
Click to expand...
Your contending that the Mojahedin-e Khalq is not a designated terrorist organization?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Your contending that the Mojahedin-e Khalq is not a designated terrorist organization?
Click to expand...

I'm contending that since the policy was changed to freezing the financing of terrorists and anyone involved with them it's a moot point.
 
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
I'm contending that since the policy was changed to freezing the financing of terrorists and anyone involved with them it's a moot point.
Click to expand...
What point, specifically, do you think is moot?

The only point I was making is that Saddam Hussein did indeed aid, harbor and support international terrorists inside Iraq. Any actions taken by the US re "freezing the financing of terrorists and anyone involved with them" have no bearing on whether or not Saddam supported terrorists within the borders of Iraq. Furthermore, it has no bearing on the sympathy of members of Team Bush for assuming the burden of support for this same international organization now that Saddam is no longer able to do so.
 


Saddam did not allow islamic fundamentalism in his country..period. Besides, even if those articles are true, none of those organizations had any interest in attacking the US. Why? Because we were funding them. We were told that Saddam had connections to 9/11 and a working relationship with Al Qaeda. Both of those things are NOT true as stated by the 9/11 comission.
 
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
Besides, even if those articles are true, none of those organizations had any interest in attacking the US.
Click to expand...
Except when they did. They fought alongside Iraqi troops during the start of the invasion.

Napoleon's Nightingale said:
Because we were funding them.
Click to expand...
This is a false statement. "We" are not and have not funded them. Some folks in Team Bush have helped them raise funds and there's amovement to get them some US tax dollars. However, US tax dollars can't go to them until after they are removed from the list of terrorist organizations.

Hussein actually did fund international terrorists. He gave them bases to use for their training and attacks. He accepted their dissidents into his prisons for them. They participated in the crackdowns on Husseins enemies for him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…